Dressed for De Palma

RAISING CAIN (1992)
Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

(Review originally written in 2002) 

There are very few thriller directors you can count on nowadays but Brian De Palma is one that manages to deliver, witness his more recent films such as "The Untouchables" and "Mission: Impossible." "Raising Cain" came in between "Carlito's Way" and the outrageously uneven "The Bonfire of the Vanities," and it is a goofy and sporadically scary thriller that at least shows the director still has command of the medium with his deft sleight-of-hand.

The film stars the perfectly cast John Lithgow as child psychiatrist Carter Nix, who may have multiple personalities including that of his evil German (or Norwegian?) father and his leather-jacketed, sleazy brother, Cain (all played by Lithgow). The tormented Carter is seemingly happily married to his unfaithful wife (Lolita Davidovich), who longs for a handsome widower named Jack (Steven Bauer). Oh, no!!! And all hell breaks loose when Carter finds out.

"Raising Cain" is fun, but it is not intended as a serious thriller since it too often mocks itself. The movie plays like a joke on De Palma's career. De Palma borrows freely from his favorite director of suspense, Hitchcock, and even rips himself off (look at the infamous shot of tennis shoes from "Dressed to Kill"). This makes for a highly uneven thriller, albeit with one or more red herrings than necessary. An example would be the cliche of the dream-within-the-dream that Davidovich has, which makes me squirm each time I see it (a similar sequence took place in "An American Werewolf in London"). Still, De Palma has moments that make you scream with delight and he knows how to draw suspense with precision and cleverness (the shocking flashback to Davidovich kissing Bauer at a hospital during New Year's Eve is a screamer). There is also a superb long tracking shot in a police station that is as equally breathless a scene as De Palma has ever done.

The performances may be over-the-top and silly, but it is still an intriguing movie to watch - a definite case of style over substance. De Palma knows how to engineer an efficient, suspenseful, chilling thriller, and for better or worse, that's exactly what "Raising Cain" is.

Laurie in Michael Myers' path

HALLOWEEN: H20 - TWENTY YEARS LATER (1998)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia
Original review from 1998

"Halloween: H20" is the seventh in the endless "Halloween" series and, although it is superior to the last few sequels, it is partly and surprisingly bland but it features the dynamic Jamie Lee Curtis and when she is on screen, it burns. She is damn good and the film's saving grace.

"Halloween H20" finally brings back Jamie Lee Curtis as Laurie Strode, who last fought and screamed her way through Michael Myers' path at the end of "Halloween II." Now it's twenty years later, and guess what day it is. Laurie is now twenty years older and has been in hiding as Keri Tate, the headmistress of a prestigious private high school where her son attends! Keri is still having nightmares about Myers, drinks Vodka by the gallon, and confides in her love interest, a psychiatrist (Adam Arkin of "Chicago Hope"), about her hellish past. But, what do you know, Michael has tracked her down, courtesy of a nurse (Nancy Stephens) who knew Laurie from the old days in an un-inventive opening sequence.

"Halloween H20" is fun for the most part, and it is a pleasure to see Janet Leigh in a largely brief cameo as Norma (!) who provides a maternal shoulder for Laurie (sorry, Keri) and drives the same sedan she drove in "Psycho" - it's a post-modernist "Scream" twist and one of the brightest spots in the entire movie. But instead of creating a scenario of suspense where Keri tries to fend off not only Michael but her own personal demons, the movie opts for overdone blood-soaked thrills by having some emaciated, hormonal teens go through the clichéd motions of your average slasher flick. The kids say, "Who's there?" and the faulty direction by Steve Miner ("Friday the 13th Part 2") allows us to see Michael in the shadows too soon before he walks up to the victims and...well, you get the idea. Let's not kid ourselves: the two "Scream" movies and the original "Halloween" went through the same motions but with, oh so much more atmosphere, finesse, suspense and humor.

There are two tense sequences that stand out in "H20": one involves an anonymous mother and her daughter at a rural rest stop where Michael lurks behind bathroom walls; and the coup de resistance moment where Michael and Laurie finally meet face to face through a window. It's a moment of pure shock and horror, exactly what should have been consistently existent through the whole movie.

Beyond that, "Halloween H20" has the enormous dignity of Jamie Lee Curtis. Her scenes with her teenage son and with Arkin are pleasurable to watch and a bit of a novelty in a disreputable genre. Curtis brings pathos, tears and toughness to her role that Neve Campbell and Jennifer Love-Hewitt will never quite muster. She single-handedly saves this mediocre, run-of-the-mill sequel that has occasional scares and shocks to the system, but they really pounce when Jamie Lee is involved. We root for Laurie Strode to survive - these teenagers are mere window dressing and a distraction.

Footnote for the curious: The post-"Halloween" movies and rip-offs offered the idea that a virginal teenager had a better chance of surviving a killer's throes than those who had unruly sex. Laurie Strode was virginal in the first two "Halloweens'" but now she has a son through the miracle of...sexual intercourse. Is Laurie's son the reason Michael Myers is after her?

Good evening, my name is Paul Rudd and I am in Halloween 6!

HALLOWEEN: THE CURSE OF MICHAEL MYERS (1995)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

 (Originally written in 1996)

It has been over twenty years since the original "Halloween" film, which spawned several terrible imitators and endless sequels. The Michael Myers character in the first film was shrouded in mystery since we didn't know what his motivation was or why he chose to revisit his hometown of Haddonfield where he killed his sister. Michael was unspeakably evil - an inhuman monster walking at a snail's pace and seemingly indestructible. The John Carpenter original remains a classic, scary, imaginative, low-budget independent film with a great, heroic role by a very young Jamie Lee Curtis. After "Halloween II," however, the series became repetitive and unnecessarily gory - a never-ending spectacle for witnessing the numerous methods Michael employed in killing his latest victims (post Number 2, only "Halloween 5" had some decent chills). 1995's "Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers" is so awful that it defies description and also wants to offer explanations for Michael's behavior - questions better left unanswered.

The opening scene is promising. A young woman carries her baby outside of a dank hospital and drives away in rainy weather. She stops at an empty bus station. A shadow appears and a white mask emerges from the shadow. It's of course Michael with a big glinting knife! Oh, well, it seemed promising. The woman in this opening sequence is Michael Myers' niece from the last two "Halloween" pictures, but who cares?

Michael goes back to Haddonfield since the Halloween season is around the corner again. A dysfunctional family has the misfortune of living at the former Myers house where Michael killed his sister (Kim Darby is one of the family members in denial over her husband's abuse). Wait a minute. If the house was boarded up and considered haunted by the townsfolk, why would anyone want to renovate it and resell it? Haven't these people heard of Amityville before? The plot thickens. If you are one of two people who has seen "Halloween 5," you'll recall the mysterious character with a black cloak and hat who rescues Michael from prison in the ludicrous finale. That mysterious stranger (no doubt, a homage to the Shadow) is back, and apparently runs the ominous hospital we see at the beginning and, get this (*spoilers ahead*), Michael Myers works for him!

Paul Rudd ("The Cider House Rules") appears in the role of the little kid whom Laurie babysitted in the original film. Now he's all grown-up and looks rather creepy. He claims to know why Michael Myers is indestructible and is aware that Myers' wrath is about to be set off again, thanks to complex charts that revolve around the Druids! Poor Donald Pleasance in, sadly, his last role as Dr. Loomis returns as a man who has retired and is living in isolation. Still, he decides to get rid of Michael one more time thanks to Mr. Rudd. What for? The monster couldn't be killed after five sequels so what makes Loomis think he can kill him now.

Marianne Hagan plays Kara Strode, Laurie's cousin, who lives in that dreaded Myers home. She suffers abuse from her father (Bradford English), who is the most rotten sonofabitch on earth that you know with certainty he will not last long. Hagan is competent in her role, though one wishes there was more for her to do.

"Halloween" The Curse of Michael Myers" exists in two versions, one is a producer's cut that has forty minutes of restored footage, an alternate (and sillier) ending and new music. It is considered the superior version but all I can say is that it is as poorly made, amateurishly acted, unscary and unsuspenseful as the theatrical version. The fact is that this "Curse" should have ended the franchise for good and ever but no. One more sequel with Jamie Lee returning surfaced in 1998 (much superior to most any other sequel) not to mention yet another sequel with Jamie Lee again! The "Halloween" movie series interests me because I keep hoping someone will return to the dread and atmosphere of the first two films. Probably the scariest element of "Curse" is that Donald Pleasance saw it fit to reprise his tired Dr. Loomis role. A curse, indeed.

1 person liked, but with Zuckerberg reservations

THE SOCIAL NETWORK (2010)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

I was both overwhelmed and underwhelmed by "The Social Network." On one hand, this is a film about a young, arrogant, socially inept billionaire who made his money by inventing the most famous social interactive website ever. On the other, this is a film about hubris, about how a business is created and how the creator cheats his partners. Or does he? Or is the 21st century business model about how you cheat your partners and that we all have to get used to it? Or is Mark someone who just can't socially interact with anyone?

Mark Zuckerberg is a Harvard whiz with computers and writing programming codes - his fingers do all the work and he sits there content. He suffers a breakup with his girlfriend, Erica Albright (a stunning Rooney Mara) and this creates an idea. Zuckerberg manages to interweave through a series of complex codes a communication tool (Facemash) where fellow students can compare female students to farm animals, and send it to one group of people after another. This results in thousands of hits. All this is meant in jest, though it can be construed as a form of bullying and defamation of character. Zuckerberg gets the attention of two Harvard athletes, the Winklevosses (amazingly acted by the same actor, Armie Hammer)who want him to create a social network site just for Harvard students. Instead Mark uses the idea to be a form of inclusivity, not exclusivity. How about a social interactive site for the whole wide world? Before you know it, Mark's close friend and partner, Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield) and Napster founder, Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake), create a site that draws a million people and counting. Some relationships are formed (Mark and company get groupies), and others are destroyed due to lawsuits about who had more input in the creation of facebook.

My problem with "The Social Network" is that I was not engaged by Mark Zuckerberg at all - he remains a nerdy genius who is nothing more than a cipher. Whatever pleasure he gets from what he creates is muted - money apparently means nothing to him and creativity merely draws a level of anxiety. But does anything mean anything to Zuckerberg? Writer Aaron Sorkin never quite answers that question. When Eduardo understands his place in a gripping scene, we understand his torment but we can't figure out Zuckerberg.

Adapted from Ben Mezrich's "The Accidental Billionaires," "The Social Network" is stupendously directed by David Fincher, a director who has taken more noble risks than any Hollywood director in years. The uniformly excellent cast (including a very spry Timberlake) and shrewdly written script by Aaron Sorkin capture the behind-the-scenes and backroom intrigue beautifully. But I sense an aloofness that leads nowhere in the film, and that is partially because Zuckerberg is a most uninteresting, unresponsive young genius played by one of the best young actors who can convey anything except disinterest, Jesse Eisenberg. I'd defriend Mark Zuckerberg in a second.

Michael Myers and his sweet niece

HALLOWEEN 5: THE REVENGE OF MICHAEL MYERS 

(1989)
Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

(originally viewed on Halloween, 1989)

"Halloween 4" ended with a nice twist that hardly salvaged the film overall. The sweet niece of Michael Myers seemed to embody his spirit, but this new sequel does not follow up on such a cool idea. Michael Myers is simply resurrected a year later, precisely on October 31st, where he seems to be strongest. And the niece, well, she is still scared of her uncle who wears the William Shatner mask.

"Halloween 5" begins effectively with an opening credit sequence that seems to slash across the screen, perfectly complementing John Carpenter's famous eerie piano score. Soon enough though, we are back to the usual shenanigans. Dr. Loony Loomis (Donald Pleasance) still has that nasty facial burn scar and is still on the hunt for Michael Myers, who still plans to kill his niece (Danielle Harris, reprising her role from the last sequel). What is so special about killing a perfectly nice schoolage girl? Is it because of her blood relation to Laurie Strode? And what does Loomis hope to accomplish by capturing Michael Myers? Killing him with bullets doesn't help, nor does burning him to a crisp. And who the heck is that Shadow-like character who walks around ominously with silver-tipped shoes?

The film does have some good scares courtesy of director Dominique Otherin-Girard, and some degree of sensitivity to its characters (I could have lived without the close-up shot of murderous Mikey shedding a tear though). Girard does handle individual sequences ably enough, particularly the chilling if improbable finale inside a prison where Michael Myers is held. Good old Mikey put in jail for what he did? Say it ain't so Myers.

So, "Revenge of Michael Myers" is truly superior to the third and fourth chapters in the series but it is not good enough to say, hey, the spirit of Michael Myers is back! A man who wears a Shatner mask and walks at a snail's pace is an idea that can't hold water after several movies. This is a competent enough shocker for Michael Myers completists - the rest of you beware.

Good evening, I am Michael Myers!

HALLOWEEN 4: THE RETURN OF MICHAEL MYERS (1988)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

 I remember anticipating with great delight the next Halloween sequel back in 1988. After all, it was seven years since the last Michael Myers film (not counting the turgid "Halloween III: Season of the Witch," which had nothing to do with Carpenter's original). It was time to return to the land of Haddonfield, Illinois where Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasance) was still on the hunt for Michael Myers, the zombiefied killer who walked at a snail's pace and only on October 31st. Well, some things are better left alone. "Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers" is one of the worst sequels ever made, bereft of thrills or chills. Even the gore leaves much to desire (and I am no fan of gore).

We are back in Haddonfield where murderous Mikey is now after his niece (Danielle Harris). Why? I could not tell you. First, we discover Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) was Mike's sister in "Halloween II" and suddenly, any family relative of Mike's is in deep trouble. Returnee Dr. Loomis (with a slight burn scar on his face) is back chasing Mike, assuring all the king's men and all the king's horses of Haddonfield that the inhuman killer will strike again on Halloween night. Naturally, nobody listens to a man as insane as Michael Myers. And surely we cannot stop celebrating Halloween, a time of tricks and treats and plenty of sex between the mature teens, now can we? Of course not, which is why the teens get it in the end, and the niece, well, I guess you will have to watch it to see what happens.

"Halloween 4" is strictly by-the-numbers and shockingly boring as a result. The famously eerie piano score by John Carpenter is remixed here with barely much enthusiasm. The mask of the Shape aka Michael Myers looks like a clown's mask, and is hardly as frightening as the original. Nothing in the film feels thrilling or remotely scary, and plus there is no atmosphere or stylistic flourishes to keep one's interest. The impression I got from this movie was that a studio executive said, "Hey gang! It is time for a new Halloween movie since Freddy and Chucky are making horror fun again at the box office. Only we will make this movie lethargic and lifeless to sit through and throw in a twist ending to make people scared so they will be willing to sit through it again and see what they missed." This is not Halloween, this is Hollow-ween.

Trick or treat, sequel stinks of smelly feet

HALLOWEEN III: SEASON OF THE WITCH (1982)
Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Now how is this for an original sequel idea? Make a second sequel to John Carpenter's "Halloween" that is in-name-only. In other words, 1982's "Halloween III: Season of the Witch" has absolutely nothing to do with the previous two films, though it credits Carpenter and Debra Hill as producers. They did envision a sort of anthology of different tales set on Halloween, but why title this film with a Roman numeral? Carpenter must have been smoking something more than just plain cigars.


"Halloween III" deals with modern-day Druids headed by Dan O'Herlihy of all people, who plan to kill 50 million children on Halloween night with Jack-O-Lantern masks that, when worn by a child, eats away at their heads until worms and bugs begin to ooze out of them. Oh, yes, and the kids do die after this horrific, cruel event takes place. Dan O'Herlihy must be smoking something too since he keeps a huge chunk of Stonehenge in his factory where these masks are made (how did he manage these historic, iconic slabs past customs?) It takes the heroes (the wholly miscast Tom Atkins and Stacey Nelkin) to thwart O'Herlihy's plan and save millions of kids who would otherwise worry about razor blades in their candy than wearing a Jack-O-Lantern mask. And if I understood correctly, this master plan of O'Herlihy's is called "The Halloween Three." Maybe I was smoking something. Ah, there are a few robots in town too but the less said about that, the better.

Sorry kids and horror fans but there is no Michael Myers this time. Except for a television ad for the original Carpenter classic (sacrilege!), there is nothing here to remind us of the atmosphere and sense of dread Carpenter brought to the original and the less-than-horrific sequel. We mostly get an update of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," but that in itself is a sacrilegious comparison to be making here. I did like the aspect of subliminal advertising through the use of the music and flashes of smiling pumpkins, but those are the only aspects that seems to work.

Director Tommy Lee Wallace merely lets the film skip by without a shred of suspense or peril at any given moment. Only Carpenter's musical score works in its favor. Whoever gave this project a green light must be a fan of torture.